In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 04:00:57 GMT, [email protected] (Rev Fredric
> L. Rice) wrote:
> A usual I have to wade through all your non sequitur rambling to get to the
> point. Therefore I will snip all your trash from now on and only answer the
> parts I am interested in.
> >I've heard Keith talk about how people have the right to believe whatever
> >they want no matter how nutty, while at the same time pointing out that
> >nutty beliefs don't equal insanity.
> If so why is Keith Henson harassing the Scientologists every single
> day either with his postings (which I am sure he knows they read) or
> by other means?
Good try for the Hemet DA, "Clark" but scientology, with their usual sense of timing, just came out with a new issue of the censor program. What would you like to bet that alt.religion.scientology and me are on it? With very few exceptions (like yourself) scientologists don't read a.r.s. If they are *good* scientologist, they *can't* read it because they have the censor program installed. > If Henson really said that to you why doesn't he leave the
> Scientologists in peace to believe what they want?
I don't have any problem with scientologists thinking they are infested with murdered space aliens. It is all that different from believing in virgin birth. My problem is with scientology defrauding people who don't have strong enough defenses to being regged, "treating" people like Lisa McPherson, being callous about human life to the point they kill people like Ashlee Shaner, or locking people up in dangers places like chain lockers or transformer vaults. I also have a problem with bribing or blackmailing government officials. > Henson's actions demonstrate the exact opposite.
> Henson's postings are inflammatory and carefully crafted to incite
> threats and violence. Concurrently his postings contain a very clear
> expression of his overall plan to incite others to do the harm which
> he suggests.
Please repost one and show were I have been inciting to violence. > You seem to have the wrong concept of what article 422 is about. 422
*IS* a > victim statute therefore it is what the victim thought was going to
happen to > *THEM*. It doesn't matter what the defendant clams his intentions
were, it is > what the victim thought.
You make my point exactly. As you say, it doesn't matter. If Clark has a pathological fear of being buggered in public, and I make a 1.1 joke about buggering the whole class of people he belongs to, then according to your analysis I could be charged under 422. Right. If you have a pathological fear of being infested with murdered space aliens . . . no, we won't go there. Keith Henson